Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
How about BFF?:D The debate on classification/naming has been ongoing on other naval threads here and elsewhere as surface ships increase in size from their traditional (historical?) displacements.
 
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
Traditional designation of something 150 m and 8000 tons is light cruiser. The T26 is not too far off the size of the US Navy Belknap Class cruisers of the 60s and 70s.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Novascotiaboy said:
Traditional designation of something 150 m and 8000 tons is light cruiser. The T26 is not too far off the size of the US Navy Belknap Class cruisers of the 60s and 70s.
Click to expand...
Being a traditionalist I wish all this PC nonsense calling Destroyers Frigates and so forth would stop. I don't care what the political spin doctors call it so as to not offend the snowflakes out there but an 8000 tonne 150m warship with 48 VLS and a 5" gun is not a Frigate in my book. It is at the very least a Destroyer. Anzacs and OHP are Frigate sized. They need to back the truck up on all this sort of thing. Rant over! :p
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Underway said:
I wrote that in my post.
CAMM - self point defence against air warfare threats
ESSM - local air defence
SM2/6 - area air defence
Naval Strike Missile - its in the name, striking naval targets (surface warfare, limited land attack).
Strike length VLS allows for land attack missiles (Tomahawk for example), ASROC etc...



Read Leadmark 2050. All the major RCN doctrine and missions are in there. The weapons and sensors for the ship are based on that.

Most of the weapons loadout for CSC is based on self and task group defence. All the AAW missiles are for defence against air threats. The biggest difference really with the CSC from the frigates/destroyer construct is offensive capability. The CSC will have 3 offensive weapons (127mm and 2 missile types) where as currently we only have one offensive option.



No Canada is not the US. But that's not what we are doing here. We are not copying the US or even the UK in this. The requirements for the CSC are entirely mission based and modeling based on our own requirements. It's not about more missiles for the sake of missiles, it's about more survivability and mission success within the Canadian Task Group construct. The requirements drive the loadout.
ie: Multiple cheap anti ship missiles are a Chinese tactic. Perhaps future threat analysis says that our frigates need to be able to deal with that. Thus load many more missiles in overlapping ranges and zones to survive a large amount of missiles directed at you.
Click to expand...
@Underway

I made the points I made, not to pick holes in any comments you made, but to look for clarity.

I am defence professional who has spent the last 25 years working within Europe & am aware of EU / UK doctrines (as well as a few other nations whose Naval projects I've worked on), but am also aware that in my experience / opinion, that Canada is in many respects 'insular' in its Naval doctrine. This 'thought' is not intended to infuriate / raise tempers, but to help explain where my thoughts are derived.

I'm also appreciative of the link you provided to Leadmark 2050, It will allow me to learn a little more, as well as giving me some light reading to help cure my insomnia ! ( LoL) :D

In many discussions across the threads within these forums, many people play 'what if' games, making comments, guessing which weaponry/equipment SHOULD be integrated into the hull, often without understanding the implications. I purposefully try & to make thought provoking comments & explain things (often by stating the obvious, so that everyone can understand). The concerns I raise are about the practicalities of integrating x2 modules into the front quarter of the ship are valid, as there is limited physical depth & width.

The comments about Canada not being the US, are also about any reasoning & possible need for a large number of long length / long range missiles. It's also about the fact that Canada possibly doesn't need as many as you think & justification for x 48 VLS, versus the space they would take up, which could be better used incorporating other equipment / accommodation / recreational areas.

Canadian vessels will also have different requirements to vessels that sail oceans & seas that are further south, so such space could be used for equipment that are needed to protect the nations coastline at the northern reaches, or to traverse east to west & vice versa, so questioning the requirement is part of that.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
FOAC said:
BAE Australia Twitter account header image
Click to expand...
You mean this...?

BAE Systems Australia (@BAESystemsAus) | Twitter

That's all anyone is asking for. If you post an image / story, simply provide the page link. It gives credence to your comments & will keep admins happy.

They're not here to kick anyone, just making sure that the website can continue to function without the concerns of legal actions or prosecution under numerous laws about the use of content that is the IPR of another individual / media site.

In my day job, I often have to source data from equipment manufacturer's websites, relating to components & have increasingly found it harder to use images, without specific permissions / authority. Sometimes it's as simple as registering your e-mail address, other times it involves calling the equipment supplier & getting their permissions. I know that here in the UK, The Financial Times, requires something similar if you want to 'share' a link to the articles they've produced.

Sometimes it's easier to go to other sources...

For instance:

Home | BAE Systems | International

Maritime | BAE Systems | United Kingdom

 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Novascotiaboy said:
Traditional designation of something 150 m and 8000 tons is light cruiser. The T26 is not too far off the size of the US Navy Belknap Class cruisers of the 60s and 70s.
Click to expand...
Even they and the Leahy class(and there Nuke powered near Sisters) went through several changes of designation from Destroyer Leader(DLG) to Guided Missile Cruiser(CG) and where quite often referred to as Frigates.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
MrConservative said:
Being a traditionalist I wish all this PC nonsense calling Destroyers Frigates and so forth would stop. I don't care what the political spin doctors call it so as to not offend the snowflakes out there but an 8000 tonne 150m warship with 48 VLS and a 5" gun is not a Frigate in my book. It is at the very least a Destroyer. Anzacs and OHP are Frigate sized. They need to back the truck up on all this sort of thing. Rant over! :p
Click to expand...
Ah you've surfaced. Not so distraught today? I emptied the rum barrel self medicating afterwards.

Is the current nomenclature conventions for warship categorisation PC nonsense drive by spin doctors? I don't think so, but I think a hangover from the end of WW2 when the RN reintroduced the category of frigate to its fleet when it recategorised its newer and larger corvettes. In the USN the equivalent was the DE.
Underway said:
Well it's a destrigate or a frigstroyer (frigroyer?). Other options are:
-Battlefrigate
-Light Destroyer
-Heavy Frigate (this one actually seems likely)
-Command Frigate
-Pocket Destroyer

Alternative historical terminology...
-Destroyer Escort (later Ocean Escort)
-Hunter Killer Destroyer
-Escort Destroyer
-Destroyer Leader

Though I did asked this question of the CRCN himself at a town hall and his response was "What are the British and Aussies calling them? -me...frigate sir- Well it seems pretty stupid to call it a destroyer when everyone else calls it a frigate. Does the name even really matter that much? That it's a good ship is all I care about!")
Click to expand...
I think this illustrates the problem that exists amongst the FVEY navies of how do you define a frigate. Do you define it by its:
  • Mission
  • Displacement
  • Armament
  • No of VLS cells
  • Or something else.
Historically in the days of sail and wooden ships, the frigate was a fast ship, used to roam far and wide on its lonesome, scouting for the enemy before returning to the fleet with that information. In the age of steam the frigate disappeared, its role taken over by the much larger, heavier armed and armoured cruisers with radio telegraphy which after WW1 acquired spotter aircraft. At the start of the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2 the RN had a dearth of convoy escorts, so started a crash build program of ASW escort vessels resulting in corvettes such as the Flower class corvettes, that were wet ships and rolled on wet grass. In 1940 the RN designed a twin screw corvette which then became the River class frigate, built in the UK, Canada and Australia. This was followed by the Loch class frigate.

I would posit that during the Cold War, within FVEY the main role of the frigate never really changed from ASW. However, in the last 30 years, this has changed and now nations, except the US are looking at more of a multirole for their frigates. Today they have to conduct AAW / ASMD and ASuW as well as ASW, especially in medium and smaller sized navies. So this really begs the question - by what criteria do we now define them?
 
Underway

Underway

Active Member
ngatimozart said:
So this really begs the question - by what criteria do we now define them?
Click to expand...
The real answer? It's not so simple. To state its political correctness is completely wrong. Every nation has its own naming conventions.

Navies based on the French/German tradition call all escort ships frigates. The Dutch do as well. Even small ships that should properly be called a corvette are generally called frigates. They differentiate by calling them AAW frigates etc...

Navies based on the Royal Navy tradition (many Asian and commonwealth) name destroyers after their role. AAW and Command Control generally get called destroyers. General purpose and ASW blue water vessels that are designed to work in a task group at sea are generally called frigates. Corvettes are basically smaller frigates that are not really designed for blue water operations for from their bases.

USN naming conventions have changed as recently as the 1980's. They generally follow RN conventions described above but have been known to just change them for political reasons. The Ticonderogas are a good example of this, they started their life as a Destroyer (due to their AAW C&C role) but were changed to the cruiser designation to close the perceived "cruiser gap" with the Soviets. The gap was fixed by expediently reclassifying them. Suddenly they was no cruiser gap.

Then you get into other weird things, like Russian heavy aviation carriers (Kiev Class), Japanese "Helicopter Destroyers", Littoral Combat Ships, etc... The British were even looking at bringing back the "Sloop of War" in a new Black Swan class at one point.

Generally things still follow tonnage... Corvette<Frigate<Destroyer<Cruiser but that's mainly because to do their roles tonnage matters. Increasingly sensors and weapons are getting smaller as technology improves and the lines between the ships blur. Some good examples of this the Hobart Class AAW Destroyer (7000 ton) and to be built Hunter Class GP frigate (7800 ton) in Australia. Canada had the Halifax Class Frigate (4700 ton) and Iroquois Destroyer (5100 ton) which were nearly identical in size, though their role differed significantly.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
ngatimozart said:
Ah you've surfaced. Not so distraught today? I emptied the rum barrel self medicating afterwards.

Is the current nomenclature conventions for warship categorisation PC nonsense drive by spin doctors? I don't think so, but I think a hangover from the end of WW2 when the RN reintroduced the category of frigate to its fleet when it recategorised its newer and larger corvettes.
Click to expand...
30 years ago there were some in the then Labour government trying to have PM David Lange call the Kiwi Anzacs "Ocean Patrol Vessels" to appease the left wing of the party and peace activists like Owen Wilkes who were organising public protests against their acquisition. Even earlier the RN were going to call the three Harrier Carriers through deck cruisers to pull the wool over the eyes of their political masters and a grumpy electorate.

Warship classification exists for two reasons, one practical and one political. Practically, naming a group of ships with similar characteristics allows for better comparison of capabilities within and among navies. Politically, warship classifications signal national intentions or influence political leaders who fund warship construction. While the practical reason may seem more functional, the political reason frequently determines classification. Captain James P. McGrath, III, USN

and yes I too am very grumpy right now .....
 
W

WillS

Member
MrConservative said:
Warship classification exists for two reasons, one practical and one political. Practically, naming a group of ships with similar characteristics allows for better comparison of capabilities within and among navies. Politically, warship classifications signal national intentions or influence political leaders who fund warship construction. While the practical reason may seem more functional, the political reason frequently determines classification. Captain James P. McGrath, III, USN
Click to expand...
Why not simply introduce a NATO classification system to allow translation between different national classification systems, rather like they already do with ranks? For instance "OF-6" is a Canadian Commodore, a Danish Flotilleadmiral, a French Contre-amiral etc?

They could base it on the old "First Rate", "Second Rate", "Third Rate" classification allowing a Defence Department to refer to a vessel as a "Destroyer" or a "Second Rate" depending on whether they were trying to impress a newspaper or placate a peacenik.

;-)

WillS
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
D

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
Calculus said:
I think so too, but could also be one of the SPY1 variants (D or F). Also confusing are the words "fire control radar", as the SPY radars appear to be volume search, not fire control. The Aegis installations I have seen (including the Hobarts) have separate fire control radars ("illuminators"), those being the SPG-62, which are dish radars in the X-band. SAAB Ceros 200 performs this function on the Halifax class.

EASR is related to SPY6 (uses the same radar modules) but different in that it seems to be designed for either a single rotating or a 3-sided installation, whereas CSC appears to have a 4-face radar. The FFG(X) designs have EASR, and are 3-sided, so I would lean more towards SPY than EASR at this point, assuming the CSC rendering is correct.

EASR: Raytheon: Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar

SPY-6: Raytheon: AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)

LM FFG(X) Design with EASR: SNA 2018: Lockheed Martin Unveils its FFG(X) Frigate Design

Bath Iron Works FFG(X) Design (Navantia F100) with EASR: Navantia Selected for the Conceptual Phase of the US Navy FFG(X) Frigate Program
Click to expand...
Hi Calculus. I really believe that although SPY 6 (V) 1 or SPY 6 (V) 4 would be very good choices for the CSC, the "real" winner will be Lockheed Martins' Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) for the CSC Frigate. The SPY 6-4 panel versions seem to be a bit too large for the 4 sided antenna platform of the CSC. Missile Defence Agency (MDA), as one of the LM partners for the CSC, is the company responsible for the Air Warning system for the CSC frigate, and have sold the ground-based LRDR Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system to Japan last year and the photos look very similar to a Naval ship "reduced" version of that system. LRDR is an excellent 4-faced phased array, solid state,"scaled up or down" radar developed by LM, that I believe will rival that of the SPY 6. LM has been contracted by the USN to fit the LRDR to the US LCS ships and new frigates. My thoughts anyway. Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top